If Rule of Law means killing unborn babies and letting serial rapists
go free, can it be such a good thing? Now that it's railroading a six-year
old boy back to a communist hellhole, I've got to ask -- what's so great
about Rule of Law?

Speaking on the Elian Gonzalez case, the magisterial Ted Koppel, host
of ABC's Nightline, has decreed, "Legally, there's really no question
he should go back to his father. Whether it's family law or immigration
law, it's not even a close call . . . we are a nation of laws."

He's saying that whether for good or evil in the short run, we gain in
the long term by having a society where Rule of Law is respected. That's
the Civics 101 Theory. But here in the real world . . . what has Rule
of Law done for us lately?

Where was Rule of Law when President Clinton got away with perjury and
abuse of power? Where did it go when he bombed a country for weeks without
a congressionally approved declaration of war? Whatever happened to Rule
of Law when Clinton accepted illegal campaign donations from China --
or when he went well over federal spending limits in his 1996 presidential
re-election campaign?

Where is Rule of Law in the Filegate case? Hillary Clinton obviously
was the mastermind, and there are 900 illegally obtained FBI files sitting
at her feet - and still the so-called Independent Counsel can't connect
the dots!

Oh, I get it. American Rule of Law is too chicken to go after the Administration
- but it can bully a six-year-old. Yeah, that'll protect our freedoms!

Tell me, once Elian is back in communist chains, will liberals continue
this newfound appreciation for Rule of Law? Will they recognize that soft
money campaign contributions are protected by the First Amendment, and
gun ownership is protected by the Second? Or will they go back to prattling
about how the Constitution is a 'living document' - but if so, why can't
the Constitution 'live' right now to help a little boy?

No, once Elian is back in the cage, liberals will send Rule of Law back
into hibernation - if for no other reason so that they can continue to
sue tobacco and gun companies for the lawful manufacture of legal products.

For a liberal, what's Rule of Law anyway? It's accusing innocent people
of child abuse on the scantiest of evidence - but letting real rapists
go free on the flimsiest of technicalities. For a liberal, Rule of Law
is when students sell cocaine and shoot fellow students on school grounds
- while principals suspend the kids who bring aspirin and nail clippers.
For a liberal, Rule of Law is a simple mantra: Punish the Innocent, and
Let the Wicked Go Free.

And isn't that exactly what's going on with Elian and Castro? Castro
is a corrupt murderer, but is above the law. Elian is guilty of no crime,
but must become Castro's slave.

For a liberal, Rule of Law really means Breaking the Law. Contrary to
what Mr. Koppel says, returning Elian to a communist regime violates every
UN protocol protecting the rights of children. The Clinton Administration's
actions are in direct violation of established legal precedence, which
assigns matters of child custody to state judges and courts - not to the
convicted perjurer and sexual-harrasser in the Oval Office.

The FBI can't properly process background checks for gun purchasers, yet
the federal government can dispatch swarms of US marshals to ensure that
a six-year-old becomes incarcerated in a country worse than any American
prison. This isn't Rule of Law -- Rule of Law would enforce the law rather
than repudiate and ignore it. Surely there is an agenda here - and a morally
perverse one at that.

Maybe in their own twisted minds, liberals want Elian returned to Castro
because they can't deal with the enormity of evil under communism, which
they once excused and even embraced. So - let's just short-circuit the
courts and hop-march that brat back to Cuba, the sooner the better, so
that we won't be troubled any longer by guilt!

Liberalism has always had a dark psychosis whereby guilt drives evil
and evil drives guilt - a morality of sadism which aborts innocent babies
but spares murderers from execution, which frees violent criminals but
disarms law-abiding citizens, which bombs a peaceful democratic nation
on the other side of the world but dutifully returns runaway child-slaves
to the terrorist despotism in our own backyard.

If the words 'Rule of Law' have become merely a hypocritical catchphrase
to justify such perversity, then we need to contemplate, as did George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson, whether we must obey a higher law.

Or, maybe, our laws will work just fine - once we vote the psychopaths
out of office.